To think that religous education should be complusory for EVERYONE

[ReallyTired]

I think that everyone should learn about ALL the major relgions in the world, whether they are Christian, Muslim, Buddist, Hindu, or Athesist or agnostic.

However I think that religous education should be taught as "This is what Christians believe" rather than "This is what WE believe". Children should not be subjected to attempts to convert them to different relgions, but they need to understand and tolerate difference. Ie. Learn that there are times that we should agree to disagree.

A basic knowledge of the five world's major relgions helps children understand current affairs, history and avoid offending people from other cultures to themselves.

If parents want their children brought up as a Christian, Muslim, athesist or pagan then they can take their children to church/ Temple/ Mosque out of school hours.

I like the assemblies at the the special school I work at. They have no relgious songs, but the school has fun singing pop songs. Although the songs are non religous they have lyrics encouraging good behaviour.
All the children are included and gain from the experience.

"I would certainly not endorse religious teaching as a platform for discussing morality."

Why not? Religious systems are primarily moral systems - and the Judaeo-Christian heritage informs many European behaviours in today's world. Surely a discussion of the rights and wrongs of that system, and others, provides a good basis for examining our own morality and thinking of ways forward?

"Teach a child to read and he or she can find out for themselves."

Why bother with school at all in fact? Teach a child to read and he/she will naturally gravitate towards all the learning he/she will ever need, with no guidance. And be able to think about it critically, with no interlocuter

ReallyTired, I see what you're saying and all knowledge is good in it's way. However some of us don't think religion IS acceptable. If it's taught at all it should be in the same way that we might teach kids about cannabilism. Something that happens yes, but not as something we think they might like to try.

the problem i think is that religious systems are NOT primarily moral systems, or at least they are not used/interpreted as such by those who practice them.

Most religions seem to be based on a fear of death and a desire to secure for oneself some kind of after life once physical existence has ended. 'Moral behaviour' within that religion is a way of behaving which finds favour with your particular god. this translates quite uneasily into the the modern world for eg Sharia law and the way it is interpreted against women.

I am very wary of equating religion with morality because then relgious extremists argue that humanists/atheists cannot be 'good' because we have no fear of hell/eternal punishment to prod us into behaving correctly.

Personally I prefer to see religion in terms of a largely outdated moral system (with its good and bad sides).

That allows me to keep the good bits of the Judaeo-Christian tradition, and discard the bits that are no longer relevant to modern life.

See Anna, I don't agree at all that Judaeo/Christian teaching underpins the majority of western morality at all. Almost all socities have basic rules such as no killing, hurting or stealing as these are the basic necessary for any group of people to survive together. Such rules both pre and post-date active religions. The "morals" that religion has provided are of a totally different nature and reflect what the dominant group thought at a particular time ie "no adultery" "no abortion" "women should dress modestly" "women and children should be chastised appropriately" - these have nothing to do with the morality that I teach my children and I don't want them to be taught that these things have anything to do with "morality".

Actually Anna, your last post sums up pretty fairly what I think! I did most of my learning over the weekend; can't say my teachers were much cop and sadly I don't think my experience is unique.

Spero - I quite agree that religious systems get exploited (like any system) by people who only have their own interest at heart. And I think that they are outdated, and we need to think very carefully about what we hold onto and what we discard...

x-post

I suppose I don't want to throw the baby out with the bathwater - the Christian message of love and equality (in the eyes of God = in the world) is very important to me, and a good guiding principle...

Why from a Christian point of view? I hate this as it is, and am contemplating withdrawing my ds because of this.

Applied religion would be much better, taught from no point of view, just factual. Tolerance and respect for other religions is important. Christian standpoint has no relevance at all imo apart from shoving it down someones throat

"I am very wary of equating religion with morality because then relgious extremists argue that humanists/atheists cannot be 'good' because we have no fear of hell/eternal punishment to prod us into behaving correctly."

Absolutely agree. It is a very dodgy standpoint to say that religion should provide a moral compass for our children. We should be quite able to teach our children right from wrong without resorting to "because the Bible says so".

don't have time to wade in properly here as pc-bashing ds has just woken up, but would have to disagree intensely with Anna's last post

the notions of love and equality should not be seen as the perogative of the Christian faith; many other cultures have come up with it and let's face it, the Christians themselves haven't kept to it particularly well, for instance historically, when interacting with other faiths/cultures!

I would much rather teach dc's that that is the way to behave regardless of what faith you are - you do not need religion to behave morally.

now going to wrangle ds...

I don't recall a Christian message of equality for all, my understanding is that all Christians are equal before God, but that non-Christians are certainly not equal. To the extent they get to burn in hell. Or have I remembered that wrong?

I would like my children to learn about belief systems from a general philosophy of religion/moral philosophy perspective, so they got to learn about religions and ethical perspectives without one, or several, of them being taught as the dominant or correct one(s).

I'd be ashamed to say that I did the right thing just so I could get a reward or because I was terrified of the punishment.

My feeling is that it is useful to know about the content and context of many religions in order to understand the culture and art of places. E.g. it is handy to have a basic knowledge of Christianity and the Bible in order to have a better understanding of most European literature before the 20th Century. So I do agree with RE in the manner in which it is supposed to be taught according to the national curriculum. But I also agree with parents' rights to withdraw their children if they feel as strongly about it as GooseyLoosey (although I think it is a shame that the children would not get the chance to decide whether or not their parents' view of religion as dangerous nonsense was correct).

The trouble is that currently it is not just taught as history. Depending on the faith of the teacher one of the religions is put forward as the true one.

Please - nowhere did I say anything remotely along the lines of "only Christianity has a message of love and equality"

So please don't argue against it.

I was just giving the Christian message of love and equality as an example of something worth holding onto (IMO) in my own case.

Fair enough, but christians often do claim that their religion is the only source of morality. In fact that's kind of the central point.

Yes, under "my" approach of teaching from a moral philosophy perspective, you could start by considering notions of equality - what it means, how it can be understood in practice, how you implement it in a society - and then look at different religions and ethical perspectives.

Rather than teaching the trite little uncontested and uncontestable truisms from within a particular religious perspective.

Most religions claim they are the only source of morality.

That's why it's very useful to look at different religions, compare and contrast, and take away what you think is relevant after critical evaluation.

I never said that RE should be taught from a Christian viewpoint. I think that RE should be taught from a neutral viewpoint.

I definatively think that the notion that only Christians are kind and loving needs to be contested.

It is also important for children to realise that most Muslims aren't suicide bombers. Also that mainsteam Islam comdems terrorism.

In Hertfordshire most schools follow the Hertfordshire country approved syabuss for RE. I think its great. I would like to see faith schools being made to follow the same syabus as state community schools.

Fluffy, I wouldn't withdraw my children from RE lessons. However, I would hugely prefer that there was no such thing as RE and religion was taught within a wider social and historical perspective so that children could understand not only the relevant ideology but also its effect.

Possibly, if you only allow atheists to teach it to avoid 'grooming'. Religious people can't be unbiased in this even if they try since that's the nature of religion.

In any case the basic moral position of the major religions is "do what god says and he will reward you and punish horribly all those who didn't"

I don't want that in any classroom. That is vile.

Well said Fennel

Do any religions teach equality? Aren't they always male dominated? Where are the powerful females in religion? Wicca???